> Through an API it costs a fraction of Opus, and you can run it yourself for free if you have the hardware. I haven't been keeping up on hardware costs for state of the art LLM inference, but this remark made me ask myself how many readers of the article would actually be able to run this model on hardware they own. How much would it cost to acquire such a setup?
GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
41–50 of 367 posts
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#42I've been checking out GLM 5.2 on some projects and few thoughts on it: - it takes it sweet time to get code rolling, not the fastest model by any means - it strays a lot during discovery/planning but then corrects - it's not steering friendly, as it hallucinates things that it doesn't follow later on - its output is quite good A sample use case: I was optimizing rendering on Swift+Zig codebase. It chocked on 5k data…
This mirrors my experience. I have been using it in Pi. It is smart and output is good but it is not efficient in getting there.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#43GLM-5.2 is quietly becoming the most interesting open model release this year. The coding benchmarks are surprisingly close to frontier models at a fraction of the inference cost.
For people who follow open LLMs, none of these were quiet and all were the most interesting open model release for a few days/weeks. In one or two months, it will be some other model again. Now I do appreciate the real rapid improvements in open models. But there's also a ton of hype and fast-fashion around all of this.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#44Pretty clearly it's beating Opus at [web dev]( https://www.gptbased.com/ ) - on price, on score.. I mean what else is there?
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#45> GLM-5.2 cost a fraction as much. Opus finished in half the time and shipped a cleaner game. Off topic, but does anyone else instantly pick up on LLMisms like this? It seems like all the models have converged on this style of writing, and improvements aren't really changing it.
I think a bunch of real humans started to adopt the LLMs writing style.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#46My only, I guess feedback, is that it's not really clear about the price.
Would the 21.92 be the API pricing I guess?
Cost $5.39 (real billed) ~$21.92 (estimate, list pricing)
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#47Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#48> So we ran it head-to-head against Claude Opus 4.8: same one-shot prompt, build a 3D platformer in raw WebGL from scratch Running a single one-shot prompt is not a benchmark, not is it representative of any sort of real-world usage. Most agent usage is collaborative so you need to test things like reliability (when I delegate a task, does it complete it without making up test results for e.g.) and steerability (does…
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#49I wonder how much tokens and time where used for the verifying part. Maybe GLM 5.2 instantly found the "solution" to read the screen pixel by pixel, but it could also have been a major token and time consumer.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#50Pretty clearly it's beating Opus at [web dev]( https://www.gptbased.com/ ) - on price, on score.. I mean what else is there?